~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The first column I chose to analyze is "The Thinking Person's Entertainment" by Alissa Quart.
New York Times contributor, Alissa Quart, begins her op-ed piece "The Thinking Person's Entertainment" by naming a few of television's current most popular programs. According to Quart, some television shows on today, such as BBC's "Downton Abbey" encourage a lifestyle away from the technology many people use on a day to day basis, in exchange for finding "narrative order." Her lede drew people in simply by listing some of today's popular television shows, and did not require a lot of words to do so.
Television shows on the air today are different from those which aired in the 1980s and early 1990s, Quart said. Programming today can be more complex, with shows such as "Lost" or "Heroes" which make a habit of using flashbacks as part of the ongoing plot, causing the viewer to watch an entire series or season to understand what is going on. Older television shows, however, would often have a solved conflict during the allotted weekly timeslot.
Quart referred to the shows with alternating timelines as "hyperlink television." She said these shows appealed to an audience more accustomed to the Internet due to the frequent back-and-forth nature of these shows. She also mentions these viewers watching several episodes of a television show at the same time thanks to todays Internet streaming abilities through iTunes, Netflix or Digital Video Recording devices.
Quart's tone suggests she prefers these more complex shows which require loyal viewership rather than older television programs which focus on a different plot during each episode. She closes her column by saying many people prefer these narrative based programs because they make the hectic day-to-day lives of their viewers a little less hectic.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The second column I chose to analyze is "Guys and Dolls No More?" by Elizabeth Sweet.
Elizabeth Sweet's New York Times column entitled "Guys and Dolls No More?" focuses on gender equality and how it seems as if we are going back in time in terms of equality instead of moving forward. Her piece begins with asking the reader to imagine toy sections in retail stores of having racial or class oriented sections. That scenario, according to Sweet, is no different than the gender separation that happens in stores and in advertising nationwide. Her lede, although a bit wordy, gives an image for the reader and helps put in perspective the topic being discussed.
Based on research done by looking at old catalogues and advertisements, Sweet said in the mid-1970s, very few products were marketed to either gender, but the trend came back during the '90s. The gender marketing stereotypes girls and boys, gearing "girl toys" such as products about beauty, the kitchen or anything with the color pink. Products such as anything involving building or the color blue are generally marketed toward boys.
Sweet is against this gender segregation tactic being used by companies and said the way boys and girls are raised with the idea that anything pink is just for girls and blue is just for boys, and she says in her column that today more than 70 percent of women are in the workforce and attempting to be treated equal to men, and that should start at a younger age, in the toy aisle. Otherwise, the gender equality movement will be pushed back even more than it already has.
No comments:
Post a Comment